How many times have you seen a film where the bad guy’s plan involves the detonation of some form of nuclear weapon? Hundreds of times, right? In fact, that is the motive of the bad guy in the latest Mission: Impossible film. So, why do you reckon that is? Well, for some of us the word “nuclear” symbolizes the potential armageddon that threatened the world during the Cold War, and for most of us, disasters like that of Chernoybl and Fukushima have revealed that there are very real dangers lurking behind this power source. While the threats may seem obvious, the president of the Royal Society of Chemistry believes otherwise. Rather, he feels that nuclear energy’s bad public image comes from one source – James Bond villains.

That’s right. Ever since the first Bond film Dr. No came out in 1962, Professor David Phillips has contended that the film’s plot (that saw the villain with his own personal nuclear reactor ) has helped to create a “remorselessly grim” reputation for atomic energy.

Speaking to the BBC, Professor Phillips said that the popularity of Dr. No “created an enduring negative image of nuclear power – as something dangerous that could be wielded by megalomaniacs with aspirations to world domination.”

As any fan of the Bond films knows, Dr. No eventually meets his demise in the cooling pool of his nuclear reactor, having been beaten by 007, but the Royal Society of Chemistry believes that the film presented nuclear power as a “barely-controllable force for evil”.

As such, Professor Phillips says that when nuclear power is discussed “it is not at all surprising that the public at home and abroad are sceptical”. He added, “the RSC asserts that nuclear power has to be part of the future national energy mix, in which it plays a major role, complemented by renewable sources. Fossil fuels have to be eradicated for people to live in a healthy environment.”

“Let’s say yes to nuclear and no to Dr. No’s nonsense,” he says.

Oh, Dr. Phillips. Save your puns and realize that people’s fear of nuclear energy comes not from spy movies, but from real-life disasters that have had devastating consequences over the past four decades.

LEAVE A COMMENT

NEW USER

CURRENT USERS LOGIN

1 Comment

bJanuary 12, 2012 at 5:16 pm

The issue with nuclear is not only about the actual accidents that have occurred but also in understanding the relativity. The fact is that we get a lot of energy from nuclear power that is not easily replaced with something better in terms of net generating capacity and cost. How many people have died from burning fossil fuels? A lot but its also hard to quantify that. Very few have died from nuclear accidents but even that is a topic for debate. One thing is for sure, which is that we don;t want to abandon nuclear as a whole before we have something better to replace it worth. Germany seems to be grappling with this right now since they’ve claimed a desire to abandon nuclear only it appears their plan will require them to build more coal plants, which isn’t really a step forward but a step backwards.

What we really need is new plants because operating aging, unsafe old plants is not going to benefit anyone. New nuclear plants are inherently safer and more efficient just as new coal plants are. More sustainable resources like wind, solar, CSP, and geothermal would be ideal but theres still a large gap to cross before they truly compete with coal and nuclear on a cost, robustness, and reliability level. So we should built and retire the old. otherwise, we are just standing still. In order to build though, people need to educate themselves on what the real hazards are and keep them in perspective. Many people fear fictional aspects related to nuclear and until that changes, it will remain difficult to have an honest and productive discussion about energy policy. There are no doubt real concerns but its paramount to resolve the unreal ones.